1 2026:CGHC:10658-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 630 of 2026 1. Rahul Chandrakar S/o Raju Chandrakar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Belsoda, Police Station Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Alok Pandey S/o Pradeep Kumar Pandey Aged About 27 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla, Madya Nagri, Thana Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Lalman Sao S/o Buwneshwar Sao Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 40 Ram Rama Residency Mahavee Nagar Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.03.02 17:21:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and quash the order taking cognizance dated 06.08.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 14087 of 2024, passed by JMFC, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), the charge- sheet bearing No. 159 of 2024 dated 06.08.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 30.06.2023) and the FIR bearing No. 158 of 2023 dated 09.04.2023 lodged by the Police station City Kotwali District Raipur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 147, 143, 186 and 341 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is a member of the C.G. D.Ed. and B.Ed. Association and is an aspirant preparing for government examinations, whereas petitioner No. 2 is an engineering student who is also preparing for competitive examinations. 3 It is submitted that the Association had launched a strike on 09.04.2023 challenging the decision of the State Government regarding the qualifications prescribed for teachers in Government Schools. On the said date, while the petitioners along with other members of the Association were allegedly participating peacefully in the strike and proceeding in a march, the police personnel present at the spot, in order to regulate and control the gathering, intervened. According to the petitioners, the police personnel misbehaved with certain members of the Association, abused them, and pushed them, which resulted in slogan shouting against the State officials. Thereafter, the police personnel inquired into the matter, noted down the names of the persons present, and the protest dispersed. 4. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 2, who was posted at the place of occurrence, lodged FIR bearing Crime No. 158 of 2023 on the same day, i.e., 09.04.2023, against 14 persons including the present petitioners. In the FIR, it is alleged that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, misbehaved with the police personnel, used abusive language, obstructed public servants in discharge of their official duties, and wrongfully restrained them. Upon registration of the FIR, the petitioners were enlarged on bail after furnishing bail bonds. It is contended that the allegations are false and motivated, and that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners. However, after investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on 06.08.2024 (though in certain records the date is incorrectly mentioned as 30.06.2023) for offences punishable under Sections 294, 147, 143, 4 186, and 341 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, by order dated 06.08.2024, took cognizance of the said offences against the petitioners and other accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings are arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to settled principles of law. It is argued that the petitioners were themselves victims of alleged police high- handedness and were peacefully participating in the protest. It is further contended that a bare perusal of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and that the allegations are vague and general in nature. It is also urged that the continuation of criminal proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners, who are young aspirants preparing for competitive examinations, and would adversely affect their future careers. On these grounds, it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed as an abuse of the process of law. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the FIR was lodged on the basis of specific allegations that 14 accused persons, including the present petitioners, formed an unlawful assembly and obstructed public servants in the discharge of their official duties. It is submitted that after due investigation, sufficient material was found against the accused persons and a charge-sheet was filed. It is further pointed out that charges have already been framed against petitioner No. 2 and co-accused Manish Kumar Sahu, and that petitioner No. 1 5 and certain other accused persons did not appear before the learned trial Court. It is contended that the matter is at the stage of trial and that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashment. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR contains specific allegations regarding formation of unlawful assembly, use of abusive language, and obstruction of public servants in discharge of official duties. The charge-sheet has been filed after completion of investigation, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance upon being satisfied that a prima facie case exists. At this stage, this Court is not required to meticulously examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, nor to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence, which are matters to be adjudicated during trial. 8. The plea of mala fides and false implication raised by the petitioners involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings of this nature. Merely because the petitioners are students or aspirants preparing for competitive examinations cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable offences. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference at this stage. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are at 6 liberty to raise all permissible defences before the learned trial Court in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan